IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gulshan Kumar ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents Date of decision: January 19, 2026 Date of Uploading: January 19, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SSUUMMEEEETT GGOOEELL,, JJ.. ((OORRAALL))

CRM-20164-2025 Application herein has been filed on behalf of the applicant-

petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, and the judgment dated 19.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby, non-applicant-respondents No.2 to 8 were acquitted of the offence(s) levelled against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 96 days, has argued that the delay has occurred as the counsel for the applicant-petitioner had not inform him regarding the decision in the appeal and the same was disclosed to him in the month of January, 2025. Thereafter, the applicant-petitioner immediately obtained requisite documents from the counsel in the Court below and filed the instant revision petition along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel has further asserted that the registry raised objection in the petition on 24.03.2025, the counsel for the applicant-petitioner collected the file from the registry, but kept it with him in some wrong brief. Later, on the asking of the applicant-petitioner, his counsel immediately removed the requisite objections and re-filed the revision petition, and, thus, delay of 96 days occurred due to aforesaid reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has further submitted that an application for condonation of delay ought to be considered liberally, particularly, where the applicant-petitioner has good case on merits. On these submissions, condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the revision petition has been sought. It has been further contended that no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents, in case, the instant application is allowed and the instant revision petition is heard on merits. Learned counsel has further argued that circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate &, hence, delay deserves to be condoned.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.

4. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of this Court passed in CRR (F)-1844-2023 titled as Deepak vs. Noori and another, decided on 29.02.2024; relevant whereof reads as under:

“8. As a sequel to above-said discussion, the following principles of law emerge:

I. A liberal approach, undoubtedly, ought to be accorded to a plea for condonation of delay made under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 so as to further the cause of substantial justice. The concept of substantial justice essentially includes in itself the desirability of adjudication of a claim of the litigant on merits thereof rather than rejection of the same, at the threshold, on account of being barred by limitation. However, adoption of such liberal approach cannot be stretched to mean that a prayer (for condonation of delay) ought to be granted sans reasonable explanation therefor. An applicant (seeking condonation of delay) has to bring forward cogent, credible and lucid reason(s) to substantiate such a plea. In case such reason(s) is not scrutable, a Court would well be within its discretion to decline such plea (for condonation of delay). In other words, inexplicable delay ought not to be condoned.

II. A Court ought to grant an application seeking condonation of delay when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to such applicant and/or such delay